How do you write your log?

[GerritS]

How do you pass on your disapointment in a cache?

 

We all do the caches as we are in the area or that green box is the last one in the area...

 

You look on the map and its size you know what you are going for. A micro/ small in a housing estate, often hidden at the base of that frame/ post where the local dogs relieve themselves .. Often placed with little imagingation ... We all have the type of caches we would rather not see, but go and find anyway...

 

How do you log your displeasure?

One I have found my self using is if I feel it is that bad is "A nice cache for the numbers not the location".

 

Am I being to harsh? I know caches are for every one but some must be really reaching out to the minorities?

 

GerritS

[+Gushoneybun]

Not my most PC comments: Flyover I struggled with what to write, but really could see someone getting injured here so went for it

[The Royles]

So, a quick recap -

 

1. You read the cache page and know you will not enjoy the cache.

2. You do the cache anyway.

3. You then moan about it.

 

Personally I skip steps 2 and 3

[+HazelS]

Oh Andy - you're such a purist!!!

 

I do em.... I do em cos thet're on the list to do..... I'm sorry - I rarely hold back and I have been known to speak my mind..... lol

 

PS - Andy - will we see you camping at Marzi's event?????

[+HouseOfDragons]

Often there's no idea of knowing what's there til you get there. Sometimes even the most promising ones turn out to be rank.

 

Worst though are micros in the woods. Unless it is a really clever hide, WHY??

 

I try to be honest but not scathing in my log - luckily I've not come across any that need it yet.

[+Gushoneybun]

I did the cache because it was on a route I often travel and it would just have annoyed me. Normally I try to offer positive comments like a regular could be hidden here or what a great church/bridge etc some detail on that would be good.

 

 

I have arrived at other caches and walked away, or just carried on driving, but when you have arrived parked up found GZ then its a dump I will normally search. I will also email owners if there are issues such as an FTF I recently found in a stone wall, they thanked me and moved it.

[+Primitive Person]

So, a quick recap -

 

1. You read the cache page and know you will not enjoy the cache.

2. You do the cache anyway.

3. You then moan about it.

 

Personally I skip steps 2 and 3

 

I certainly don't go for ones I KNOW I'm not going to like, but in some cases cache descriptions are very short and it's only when you get there that you discover it's a terrible hide. Also locations can deteriorate fast - what was once a nice spot can end up colonised by society's less pleasant people, with little or no warning.

 

I can't think of many caches I've not enjoyed or found to be unpleasant for any reason, but we do owe it to other cachers to point out obvious major problems or dangers. Whilst I don't advocate a particularly heavy-handed approach - we're all different and what might be a huge issue for me could be trivial to someone else, and vice-versa - it's good to be constructively critical if it's necessary.

 

I think caching is generally pretty safe, but by its very nature - getting out into isolated places - it can carry risks, and these need to be considered. While cache setters can't be held responsible for the idiocy of others, a clear understanding of what a cache involves is invaluable to potential finders, and finders are the ones coming to caches blind, as it were, and their feedback is valuable.

 

We all change and learn as well. My first cache hide was hidden in a location I now consider to be highly unsuitable, and was muggled in a particularly nasty way, but for a year or so it worked just fine, although that was probably more luck than judgement. Everyone who did it was positive, but if anyone has any issues with my hides, I'd far rather be told so I can deal with them promptly. I want people to enjoy my caches, not come away with an injury, a problem or a grudge.

 

Lee

[+The Blorenges]

I can only recall 3 caches where we expressed definite negativity (good phrase? ) about the cache...

 

"Walked across grass/weeds/rubbish to the search area, looked at vertical rails... hmmmm. We searched for 2 or 3 minutes, muggles passing nearby were obviously thinking "what's the point of examining that?" and we came to exactly the same conclusion: Just not an interesting or pleasant hunt so we decided not to continue."

 

"I have to admit that I didn't do a very thorough search for this one as I hadn't brought any gloves with me today - as a previous cacher commented, a rather smelly corner with added pigeon droppings and the feathered owner of them eyeing me up from her nest a few feet above..."

 

"This cache is in an unhappy state. Others have commented on the pile of rubbish where the cache is but now, just in the layby someone has deposited the remains of a sheep. Yes, it isn't pretty and it does smell and you have go right past it on the 'path'. The cache box itself is wet, the log book is composting happily..."

 

I think three negative logs out of (nearly) 600 Finds isn't bad. I don't think we regularly nit-pick, but sometimes you just need to say what you think.

 

MrsB

 

Incidental afterthought: We have a cache of our own which has had a couple of logs containing "definite negativity" too. The area seemed fine when we placed it but recently there's been comments about fly-tipping on the approach to the cache and that's fine - We're now keeping a close eye on the logs and will no doubt check the location again soon. If it's really unpleasant then the cache will be archived, or relocated.

Edited May 1, 2009 by The Blorenges

[+drsolly]

I have no problem with a cache being dangerous, as long as that's explained on the cache page, and obvious even if I don't read the cache page. When I see a vertical cliff that needs climbing using pitons and stuff, no problem - it's just not for me. But if it's a river to cross, and the risk is, I get rather wet, then I'll accept that risk. But t also needs to be stated on the cache page, so that people are spared making the journey to the cache, only to find out that it's not one they want to do.

 

In the case of a tree that needs climbing - sometimes I will, sometimes I won't. I can't tell you until I've seen the tree.

 

But what I really wouldn't like, is a situation that is dangerous, but that isn't obvious. Like a footbridge that collapses when you walk on it (not happened to me, but did to someone else). On the other hand, what is "danger"? I walked out along a tree across a river, stepped on a log to get the last part across, log rolled, I was in water up to my waist. Not what I would have wanted, but no real harm done. Or there's the notorious case when I jumped happily into a hole, without thinking about how I was going to get out again (I did get out, fortunately, otherwise I'd still be there).

 

So I think it's really up to each cacher to decide on whether they're going to accept the risks involved, or to control their children/dogs in risky situations.

 

Then there's urban caches, such as "off yer trolley". If you go behind the recycle area, that might be clean when the cache is placed, but that's a place that so often becomes quite horrible. The cache setter should take consideration of that.

 

I've only been really critical of two caches. One was in a really horrible area behing a recycling area, the other was magnetically attached to someone's headstone in a graveyard.

 

Some caches are really good - a great location, or a clever hide, or something else outstanding. And I'll say so in the logs.

 

The majority of caches are in the middle. A pile of sticks by a tree, a micro in a forest, a stone by a footpath sign. But even then, that might not be the fault of the cache setter. I've noticed that some of the caches in my "Chiltern Hundred", which were originally in (what I thought) clever hides, have by now migrated to a pile of sticks by the base of a tree, and some of the logs say "Found under a pile of sticks at the base of the tree, even though the hint said eight feet up, so I rehid as found."

 

So here's a plea. If the cache isn't found according to the hint, please rehide it as per the hint, not as found? Thanks.

[+maxkim]

So here's a plea. If the cache isn't found according to the hint, please rehide it as per the hint, not as found? Thanks.

Now there's an invitation to have your cache hidden anywhere.... LOL. It's happened to me several times. MaxKim

[+keehotee]

How do you pass on your disapointment in a cache?

 

If a cache looks like some effort's been put into hiding it, I'll put some effort into my log entry.

 

Unfortunately, too many nowadays get nothing more than TFTC from me.....

 

[+Lime Candy]

I'm all in favour of total honesty. Say your piece and let other readers make their choice.

 

Interestingly I was researching caches in Macclesfield (have got a day there later this month) and saw gushoneybun's log for Flyover - it was extremely useful in ensuring I crossed that cache straight off my list. Thanks GHB.

[+Bear and Ragged]

So here's a plea. If the cache isn't found according to the hint, please rehide it as per the hint, not as found? Thanks.

 

Paperless, and very rarely read/use the hint these days.

How do I know it's not "As per the hint" when I put it back?

(Now that's me being unable to find the things, and having to read the hint from now on! )

 

Back OT

If it's a good cache I try to write a good log...

[+*mouse*]

If I like a cache I try and take the time to write a decent log entry, if I dislike a cache I keep it short and sweet. Something like 'One for the numbers' is pretty typical.

[+MooToo]

We once started the log "welcome to dog excrement bank",the new cacher got the hint and move it to a more appropriate area,so it pays to be honest...... MooToo

[+Malpas Wanderer]

Quite a few where I have posted negative logs have been archived shortly after.

 

Many could have been made into good caches with a little effort, unsure why folk are reluctant to revise placement or thinking.

[GerritS]

Often there's no idea of knowing what's there til you get there. Sometimes even the most promising ones turn out to be rank.

 

Worst though are micros in the woods. Unless it is a really clever hide, WHY??

 

I try to be honest but not scathing in my log - luckily I've not come across any that need it yet.

 

There in lies the problem, if you don't do them how do you know if they are good or not?

Read and trust the logs, in writing them honist it seems is recomended... If not do them you never know what you will find.

 

As for micro's in the woods Ive just done 20 odd off them, a cache circle. Personnaly when it comes to logging cache circles I will log the individual caches as best as I can remember. Then on the last cache give a summary of the cache circle. This I hope will help future cachers decide if these are the caches for the day...

[+Fuchsiamagic]

I've been a bit reluctant to tell the truth about poor caches as I see them, and more so recently, when a cache owner posted a critical note on the cache page referring to my comments as "putting people off doing the cache".

 

I had one where the cache was situated on a busy main road, on a dangerous blind bend, where you had to cross over from the lay-by to get to the cache on the other side. When I commented "I hope there's a good hospital nearby", the owner got very nasty. (turns out he was a nurse at said hospital!). Perhaps he was looking for business!

[+Stuey]

I can only recall 3 caches where we expressed definite negativity (good phrase? ) about the cache...

 

In my line of work, I've been encouraged to provide "Developmental Feedback". It's more productive than negative feedback.

[+speakers-corner]

After reading all your comments about caches that you have all found, I find myself very lucky. Up until now I havent needed to write negative comment, and I hope I dont have to.

[+ITCHYthirdEYE]

I've only written one bad comment as the cache was in a bad state, the owner then reponded to say he no longer lived in the area and asked for someone else to take over the cache. I only have 1 hide but I would rather be told if there was a problem so I could sort it.

[+bnpkidz]

You can write whatever you want. The worst that can happen is the cache owner deletes your post, sends you a scathing email, or archives the cache altogether. Personally, I always try to sugar coat the bad news. Or I will refer to a previous post like, "Boy I wish I would have read the previous posts so I would have know what NOT to do" (or something similar). If you don't like caching where dogs relieve themselves, then write that in the cache so others know what to expect. Without giving away the exact location of course.

 

Sometimes a cache is just plain dangerous, like a skirt-lifter with a hornets nest or close to a dangerous roadway like a previous post mentioned. In that case, I write a VERY detailed description of my experience and then post a "Needs Maint" or "Needs Archived" log. If if is in a place where harm to an individual is possible, it needs to be shut down. Reviewers can only see so much when they review hides and the logs are a feedback mechanism to alert other cachers and reviewers to danger.

[+Team Steamrunner]

I've only had to writeone negative review, and it wasn't really the owner's fault. The cache was in an area that had be "reclaimed" by teenagers and GZ was covered in litter, beer cans, condoms and needles. When the owner read it he said he'd move the cache to somewhere more appropriate.

[team tisri]

I only wrote one log that was negative, I'd gone out in my "civvies" which was just as well, because had I been in my work suit I wouldn't have gone within about 100 feet of GZ.

 

Having finally found a film pot under a pile of trash in the corner of a car park I signed the log and didn't replace the trash over the top of it. A magnetic micro wouldn't have made the general area any nicer but would have meant it didn't end up under the trash.

 

I've found a few micros in the woods that have worked really well, but truth be told unless I really truly didn't like a cache I don't say anything specifically negative in the log.

[+Handsyhands]

I usually stick a simple TFTC if I'm dissapointed with the find but would go into more detail if I felt the hide was detremental to health or a comnplete waste of time. I recently set up my first cache after spending months scouting the general area to see what it looked like during the various seasons, within a couple of weeks of going live a compost heap appeared next to it and someone threw Poo Bags on the pile, I would never had known about the negative changes to the location had it not been for someone logging honestly. I want peoples experience of my caches to be interesting and fun and after a quick trip out to the site the area was tidied up and is now back on track. Moral of the story .... honesty is the best policy IMHO.